RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most diagnosed noncutaneous malignancy and second leading-cause of cancer death in men, yet screening is decreasing. As PCa screening has become controversial, socioeconomic disparities in PCa diagnosis and outcomes widen. This study was designed to determine the current disparities influencing PCa diagnosis in Charlotte, NC. METHODS: The Levine Cancer Institute database was queried for patients with PCa, living in metropolitan Charlotte. Socioeconomic status (SES) was determined by the Area Deprivation Index (ADI); higher ADI indicated lower SES. Patients were compared by their National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk stratification. Artificial intelligence predictive models were trained and heatmaps were created, demonstrating the geographic and socioeconomic disparities in late-stage PCa. RESULTS: Of the 802 patients assessed, 202 (25.2%) with high-risk PCa at diagnosis were compared with 198 (24.7%) with low-risk PCa. High-risk PCa patients were older (69.8 ± 9.0 vs. 64.0 ± 7.9 years; p < 0.001) with lower SES (ADI block: 98.4 ± 20.9 vs. 92.1 ± 19.8; p = 0.004) and more commonly African-American (White: 66.2% vs. 78.3%, African-American: 31.3% vs. 20.7%; p = 0.009). On regression, ADI block was an independent predictor (odds ratio [OR] = 1.013, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.002-1.024; p = 0.024) of high-risk PCa at diagnosis, whereas race was not (OR = 1.312, 95% CI 0.782-2.201; p = 0.848). A separate regression demonstrated higher ADI (OR = 1.016, 95% CI 1.004-1.027; p = 0.006) and older age (OR = 1.083, 95% CI 1.054-1.114; p < 0.001) were independent predictors for high-risk PCa. Findings, depicted in heatmaps, demonstrated the geographic locations where men with PCa were predicted to have high-risk disease based on their age and SES. CONCLUSIONS: Socioeconomic status was more closely associated with high-risk PCa at diagnosis than race. Although, of any variable, age was most predictive. The heatmaps identified areas that would benefit from increased awareness, education, and screening to facilitate an earlier PCa diagnosis.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: To present a novel technique of preperitoneal cross-over for eTEP VHR. METHODS: Patients who underwent robotic eTEP with mesh utilizing a preperitoneal cross over technique were identified using a single-institution hernia database. This novel technique involves minimally invasive access to the retro-rectus space on one side with midline cross over into the preperitoneal space on the contralateral side. Baseline demographics of the patients were obtained, and intra-operative and post-operative outcomes were reported. RESULTS: Nine VHR patients underwent robotic eTEP with mesh using a preperitoneal crossover technique. Five patients were male, mean age was 53 ± 18.4 years, and mean BMI was 32.5 ± 4.2 kg/m2. Two patients were diabetic and 2 were previous smokers. Two of the hernias were recurrent. The average hernia defect was 96.9 ± 45.5 cm2 and the average mesh size was 593.3 ± 168.2 cm2. Four patients underwent a unilateral TAR, while five patients did not require any component separation. All cases were CDC Class 1 wounds. All patients met discharge criteria on post-operative day 1. There was one post-operative wound occurrence which was a seroma. There were no infectious complications and no hernia recurrences. The average follow up was 1.4 ± 1.2 months. CONCLUSIONS: Preperitoneal cross-over during eTEP ventral hernia technique is a safe technique that allows placement of a large extra-peritoneal mesh. Early patient outcomes are favorable. Larger sample size and follow-up are needed to truly assess postoperative outcomes.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Our center has adopted many evidence-based practices to improve outcomes for complex abdominal wall reconstruction with porcine dermal matrix. This study analyzed outcomes over time using porcine dermal matrix in complex abdominal wall reconstruction. METHODS: Prospective, tertiary hernia center data was examined for patients undergoing complex abdominal wall reconstruction with porcine dermal matrix. Early (2008-2014) and Recent (2015-2021) cohorts were defined by dividing the study interval in half. Multivariable analyses of wound complications and recurrence were performed. RESULTS: Comparing 117 Early vs 245 Recent patients, both groups had high rates of previously repaired hernias (76.1% vs 67.4%; P = .110), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention class 3 or 4 wounds (76.0% vs 66.6%; P = .002), and very large hernia defects (320 ± 317 vs 282 ± 164 cm2; P = .640). Recent patients had higher rates of preoperative botulinum injection (0% vs 21.2%; P < .001), posterior component separation (15.4% vs 35.5%; P < .001), and delayed primary closure (23.1% vs 38.8%; P < .001), but lower rates of concurrent panniculectomy (32.3% vs 27.8%; P = .027) and similar anterior component separation (29.1% vs 18.2%; P = .060). Most mesh was placed preperitoneal (74.4% vs 93.3%; P < .001). Recent patients had less inlay (9.4% vs 2.1%; P < .01) and other mesh locations as fascial closure rate increased (88.0% vs 95.5%; P < .001). Over time, there was a decrease in wound complications (42.1% vs 14.3%; P < .001), length of stay (median [interquartile range]:8 [6-13] vs 7 [6-9]; P = .003), and 30-day readmissions (32.7% vs 10.3%; P < .001). Hernia recurrence decreased (10.3% vs 3.7%; P = .016) with mean follow-up of 2.8 ± 3.2 and 1.7 ± 1.7 years, respectively. Respective multivariable models(odds ratio, 95% confidence interval) demonstrated an increased risk of wound complications with diabetes (2.65, 1.16-5.98; P = .020), panniculectomy (2.63, 1.21-5.73; P = .014), and anterior component separation (5.1, 1.98-12.9; P < .001), with recurrence risk increased by wound complication (3.8, 1.4-2-7.62; P = .032). CONCLUSION: Porcine dermal matrix in complex abdominal wall reconstruction performs well with low recurrence rates. Internal assessment and implementation of evidence-based practices improved outcomes such as length of stay, wound complications, and recurrence rate.